Additional Important Updates on the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban August.21.2024 The Rule is Blocked Nationwide: On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, granted...more
The Rule is Blocked Nationwide: On August 20, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, granted Plaintiff-Intervenors’ motion for summary judgment, holding that the FTC’s...more
Decision in ATS Tree Services: On July 23, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in ATS Tree Services v. FTC denied the plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction seeking a nationwide...more
Additional Important Updates on the FTC’s Non-Compete Ban Decision in Ryan LLC: On July 3, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in Ryan, LLC v. FTC, issued a preliminary injunction staying the effective...more
In a novel and sweeping act of substantive rulemaking, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) determined that non-compete agreements between employers and workers constitute an “unfair method of competition” prohibited under...more
Legislators in New York have passed a bill that would prohibit non-compete agreements. Governor Kathy Hochul has expressed support for “banning agreements that limit workers’ ability to move and work freely,” but it is...more
We are seeing a steep increase in restrictive covenants legislation across the country with laws and enforceability widely varied from state to state. So how do companies that have seen their workforce distributed in more...more
On February 7, 2020, Chief U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller of the Eastern District of California issued a detailed order explaining the court’s January 31, 2020 grant of a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of...more
As the holiday season approaches, it is a good time for employers to review their policies and take preventative measures to ensure festivities do not get out of hand at office holiday parties....more
Earlier this year, Washington adopted a new law—Engrossed Substitute House Bill 1450—that places significant restrictions on the enforceability of non-competition agreements. The law applies to “every written or oral...more
8/2/2019
/ Confidential Information ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Franchises ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Independent Contractors ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
New Legislation ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
State and Local Government ,
State Labor Laws ,
Unenforceable Contract Terms ,
Venue
On July 22, 2019, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its recent decision in Vazquez v. Jan-Pro Franchising International, Inc., and ordered that it would certify to the California Supreme Court the question of whether the worker...more
As was reported late last year, the Department of Labor (“DOL”) in 2018 published an Opinion Letter (FLSA2018-27), effectively rescinding the agency’s 80/20 tip credit rule....more
Employers in many industries use non-compete agreements as a key tool to protect trade secrets. According to U.S. Treasury reports, non-compete agreements impact approximately 30 million – nearly one in five – U.S. workers,...more
On November 8, 2018, the Department of Labor published an Opinion Letter (FLSA2018-27) reissuing its January 16, 2009 guidance (Opinion Letter FLSA2009-23) and reversing the agency’s Obama-era position on the 20% tip credit...more
On July 26, 2018, the California Supreme Court found that employers must compensate workers for the time they spend on certain menial tasks after clocking out of their shifts. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that...more
As a result of recent activity at the D.C. Circuit and the National Labor Relations Board (the “NLRB”), the joint employer standard is in a state of flux. On April 6, 2018, the D.C. Circuit decided that it will review the...more
As Congress considers a bill to change the definition of joint employment under two federal statutes, the Supreme Court is poised to decide whether to take up the issue under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the U.S. Department...more
Recently, in Augustus v. ABM Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court upheld a $90 million award of statutory damages, interest, and penalties against an employer who required employees to remain on-call during...more
Non-compete agreements have long been used by employers as an effective tool to protect their valuable trade secrets and confidential information. However, employers’ overuse of non-compete agreements and employers’ practice...more
9/16/2016
/ Employer Liability Issues ,
Employment Contract ,
Fast-Food Industry ,
Freedom To Work Act ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Intellectual Property Protection ,
Low-Wage Workers ,
Minimum Wage ,
New Legislation ,
Non-Compete Agreements ,
Restaurant Industry ,
Restrictive Covenants ,
Trade Secrets ,
Unconscionable Contracts ,
Wage and Hour
On May 28, 2015, the Sixth Circuit in Rhinehimer v. U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. affirmed a $250,000 jury verdict in favor of a former financial advisor for U.S. Bancorp Investments (“USBII”) who alleged that he had been...more
6/12/2015
/ Adverse Employment Action ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Financial Adviser ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Jury Verdicts ,
Popular ,
Protected Activity ,
Sarbanes-Oxley ,
US Bancorp ,
Whistleblower Awards ,
Whistleblowers
The Supreme Court is set to weigh in on several key questions for employers this term related to employee discrimination. When does an employer have to accommodate a pregnant employee? How about a job applicant who wears a...more
Last Tuesday, a Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted partial class certification in a case where plaintiffs allege that the United States Census Bureau used arrest...more
7/9/2014
/ Background Checks ,
Census ,
Census Bureau ,
Class Action ,
Class Certification ,
Criminal Background Checks ,
Criminal Records ,
Discrimination ,
Disparate Impact ,
Employer Liability Issues ,
Hiring & Firing ,
Title VII